Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 324 (JHR)

Madhab Das v. Harimati Dasi

2016-02-11

AMITAV K.GUPTA

body2016
ORDER : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.04.2000 passed by learned Sub-Ordinate Judge-1-cum Land Acquisition Judge, Jamshedpur in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 1 of 1989, whereby the award/ compensation was allowed in favour or the applicant/respondent. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that in the proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C with respect to the aforesaid land between the appellant/defendant and the applicant/respondent the learned Executed Magistrate has held that the land was in possession of the appellants. It is urged that applicant/respondent had preferred a revision against order of the Executive Magistrate before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur which was dismissed and the finding of the Executive Magistrate was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur. 3. It is contended that the sale deed purported to be executed by Puti Dasi in favour of the O.P./respondents was not acted upon and the respondent were never in possession of the said land. That this aspect of the matter was not considered by the trial Court and the evidence of the appellants/defendants was brushed aside by the court below without assigning any cogent reason. On the above ground it is urged that the impugned judgment and award is fit to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has countered that the order passed under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C does not create any right title or interest over the land. That in fact the respondent had acquired valid title in terms of sale deed. That the appellants had not questioned or ever challenged the sale deed. 5. Heard. Perused the impugned order. It transpires that the land described in Schedule-A, was acquired for Swarnrekha Project and the respondent had purchased Schedule-B which is part of the Schedule-A land. Admittedly the recorded tenant, Puti Dasi had sold the land to the respondent/applicant by the registered sale deed No. 2637 dated 04.04.1979, where after the respondent mutated her name in the sherisita of erstwhile State of Bihar and came in possession of the same. The appellant contested the claim on the ground that the said sale deed was illegal, collusive and fraudulent as it was executed without any consideration. The appellant contested the claim on the ground that the said sale deed was illegal, collusive and fraudulent as it was executed without any consideration. That the applicant/respondent had no right to sell the land which was jointly owned by the appellants and the applicant/respondents. That the possession of the applicant/respondent was negated in Miscellaneous Case No. 1 of 1979 whereby the possession of the appellant was declared over the said land in a proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C which was affirmed by the revisional Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur. It is contended that the entire lands acquired by the Swarnrekha Project was joint property and the appellants are also entitled to receive the compensation. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the court below has framed as many as three issues and on the basis of evidence on record found that the acquired land was not in joint possession, rather it was recorded in the name of Puti Dasi, the legal heir and widow of Muchi Ram. The trial Court has discussed the evidence on the basis of the documents. The respondent/applicant had filed certified copy of the mutation order i.e. Ext.-3 and rent receipt i.e. Ext.-2 series. The sale deeds Ext.4 and 4/a executed by the appellants in favour of different persons has been considered whereby the trial Court held that partition had taken place between Muchi Ram and Jugal Das. The sale deed executed by Puti Dasi in favour of the respondent is Ext.-1. 7. It is evident that the appellants and respondent/O.Ps though they are claiming to be joint owners of the said property, had not challenged the sale deed executed by Puti Dasi in favour of respondent before any competent Civil Court. The appellants had transferred some lands by sale deeds Ext.4 and 4/a to different persons and trial Court has rightly held that there was no joint possession of the suit land. 8. It is well settled that a finding under Section 145 Cr.P.C is only with respect to the physical possession and is not decisive for determining the right title or interest of the parties. The learned lower Court has analyzed and discussed the evidence and rightly held that Ext-A and B, i.e., that the orders passed in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C does not create any title over the land in favour of the appellants. The learned lower Court has analyzed and discussed the evidence and rightly held that Ext-A and B, i.e., that the orders passed in the proceeding under Section 145 Cr.P.C does not create any title over the land in favour of the appellants. It is evident that the respondent/applicant had acquired a valid title by transfer of the suit property in terms of the execution of the sale deed (Ext.-1) by the recorded tenant in favour of the applicant/respondent. 9. Thus, in view of the discussion made above and evidence on record, there is no cogent reason to interfere with judgment and award of the learned trial Court. 10. In the result the judgment and award of the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed consequently the appeal stands dismissed. 11. Office is directed to prepare the decree in terms of the judgment/award passed by the trial Court.